Andreas Saurwein wrote:
At 6/10/2003 16:00 Monday, you wrote:
There were some discussions about creating a reviewer process for
cleaning
the data further.
I do question the 15% value. Mainly because I question the definition of
spam that you used. For example, joke forward and virus mail seem to
qualify
as unwanted email. Also depending on the mailing lists that you are
speaking
of, they could qualify as unwanted email.
This brings us probably back to "The Question": what is spam, or what is
not spam.
While i believe that joke forwards may be "unwanted" mail, they are not
spam (UCE, UBE). People should be able to cope with that on a person to
person level.
Mailing lists, as found on the spamarchive, are mostly (I guess) lists
to which the people have subscribed, time ago, but do not want anymore.
Instead of unsubscribing (which IS painful for some lists, I know) they
add those lists, senders, etc, to their blacklists, or manually forward
as spam.
Virus mail is definitely unwanted, but also does not classify as spam
(UCE), maybe as UBE - not sure about that.
That is why the group charter has stayed away from defining what spam
is. We want to introduce the notion of consent into the email system to
allow users to consent or deny consent to every single mail message, and
groups and categories of mail messages. Lack of a strong definition is a
problem for efforts such as the SpamArchive.org. The technical
considerations document
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt)
states that:
" For most working discussions, the term "Unsolicited
Bulk Email" is sufficient. The salient point that it
is a mass-mailing ensures that discussion covers the
broadest concern of the user and provider
communities. Mail that is not in some real sense "bulk"
cannot flood networks or mailboxes. Essentially all
mail that people object to, as "spam", is bulk. For
example practically all objectionable advertising mail
is also bulk, although modern techniques for targeted
advertising can permit extensive content or address
tailoring. "Bulk" is usually very difficult for an
individual recipient to prove, but almost always easy
to recognize in practice.
"
The working definition used in that document concentrates on the "bulk"
aspect of spam which could be a problem when dealing with lists which
are also "bulk" by nature as you described above.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg